Talk:Trail of Tears - Revision history

RJJensen: /* Genocide */ what is morally right?

2008-12-07T20:08:17Z

Genocide: what is morally right?

RSchlafly: /* One-sided comments */ I don't know enough about the matter to cast a moral judgment

2008-12-07T19:19:44Z

One-sided comments: I don't know enough about the matter to cast a moral judgment

DinsdaleP: /* One-sided comments */

2008-12-07T18:44:15Z

One-sided comments

RSchlafly: /* One-sided comments */ I am not erasing facts; just one-sided opinions

2008-12-07T18:16:18Z

One-sided comments: I am not erasing facts; just one-sided opinions

DinsdaleP: /* Genocide */

2008-12-07T15:05:01Z

Genocide

RJJensen: RShlafly has fallen into liberal ways

2008-12-07T11:13:18Z

RShlafly has fallen into liberal ways

RSchlafly: It does not help to explain the views of one political party, without also explaining the views of the majority party

2008-12-07T03:34:28Z

It does not help to explain the views of one political party, without also explaining the views of the majority party

RSchlafly: /* Genocide */ I am not expressing an opinion about whether the Indian relocation was good or bad.

2008-12-07T03:15:30Z

Genocide: I am not expressing an opinion about whether the Indian relocation was good or bad.

DinsdaleP: /* Genocide */

2008-12-07T00:44:59Z

Genocide

RJJensen: which fact?

2008-12-07T00:35:44Z

which fact?

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:08, December 7, 2008
Line 73:		Line 73:

	::::::::RSchlafly, you are most certainly "expressing your opinion" when you choose to remove the cited contributions of others instead of adding balance to the article my making ''new'' contributions of your own. That smacks of censorship, but I'm done trying to debate the issue with someone whose only mode of contribution is with an eraser. --[[User:DinsdaleP\|DinsdaleP]] 10:05, 7 December 2008 (EST)		::::::::RSchlafly, you are most certainly "expressing your opinion" when you choose to remove the cited contributions of others instead of adding balance to the article my making ''new'' contributions of your own. That smacks of censorship, but I'm done trying to debate the issue with someone whose only mode of contribution is with an eraser. --[[User:DinsdaleP\|DinsdaleP]] 10:05, 7 December 2008 (EST)
		+	:::::::::Hotly debated at the time indeed, but not today. The conservatives then and now, and the religious leaders denounced it as immoral. Remini compares it to the Japanese relocation which is likewise considered immoral. Even Remini considers it "one of the most disgraceful and heartrending episodes in American history." [Remini, Andrew jackson & The Course of American Democracy, p 302]. Note that Georgia was severely punishing the Christian missionaries too. How can we tolerate that? I think when in doubt Conservapedia should stand with the evangelicals and the conservatives and the missionaries, of the 1830s and today-- not with the liberals like Jackson or the moral relativists who admit they are unable to tell the difference between right and wrong. Certainly it's unwise to erase the conservative record as if our forefathers did not stand up for what was morally right. I suggest putting back all the quotes about what the conservatives and evangelicals were doing and letting the readers decide for themselves which side to choose.
		+	Here's some background history:
		+	:''"At the forefront of the opposition to this Indian Removal Act were the missionaries of the American Board. The Board's secretary, Jeremiah Evarts, penned a pamphlet condemning Removal that was the most widely read political work since Thomas Paine's Common Sense. (83) Evarts was also instrumental in organizing large anti-Removal protests that led to the first national petition drive against a specific piece of legislation. (84) Petitions denouncing Jackson's policy soon came pouring into Congress from college campuses, women's groups, and town meetings with such intensity that one contemporary remarked that "[t]he tables of the members (of Congress) are covered with pamphlets devoted to the discussions of the Indian question." (85) The Board's work against the Removal Act was part of a broader fight against Jackson's plan by faith-based groups. Religious periodicals and pulpit sermons across the country attacked Removal and lionized the Cherokees. (86) The most biting comments, however, were reserved for Georgian officials and the discriminatory Cherokee Codes. One paper explained that the State's proposed annexation of tribal land "awaken[s] our indignation and lead[s] us almost to wish that the Cherokees had the power to vindicate their rights." (87) The Missionary Herald argued that "now is the time when every Christian, every philanthropist and every patriot in the United States ought to be exerting themselves to save a persecuted and defenceless [sic] people from ruin." (88) Another paper simply held that the Cherokees were "living monuments of the white man's wrongs." (89) The President and his supporters were vexed by this fierce opposition. Democrats in Congress blamed the missionaries and denounced their activities as "the wicked influence of designing men veiled in the garb of philanthropy and Christian benevolence." (90) Jackson thought that the missionaries' battle against Removal stemmed from their fear of losing federal subsidies. (91) Thus, he ordered the Secretary of War to impound all funds appropriated to the American Board and other religious groups. (92) The Secretary said this was retaliation pure and simple, because "the Government by its funds should not extend encouragement and assistance to those who ... employ their efforts to prevent removals." (93)'' [from Gerard N. Magliocca, "Cherokee Removal and the Fourteenth Amendment"''Duke Law Journal''. Volume: 53. Issue: 3. 2003. pp 875+, online at Questia] [[User:RJJensen\|RJJensen]] 15:08, 7 December 2008 (EST)

	==One-sided comments==		==One-sided comments==

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:19, December 7, 2008
Line 81:		Line 81:

	::::If this site stuck to only posting verifiable facts instead of opinion, then the [[Barack Obama]] article would be a fraction of its current length. I restored the reference to Burnett's account, and leaving the rest of the article alone. I have a question for RSchlafly though - while you state above that you are not "expressing an opinion about whether the Indian relocation was good", I took that to refer to the policy of relocation itself. Do you personally believe that the way the government handled the relocation, and the deaths of 4,000 that resulted directly from it, was somehow not immoral? I'd sincerely like to know. --[[User:DinsdaleP\|DinsdaleP]] 13:44, 7 December 2008 (EST)		::::If this site stuck to only posting verifiable facts instead of opinion, then the [[Barack Obama]] article would be a fraction of its current length. I restored the reference to Burnett's account, and leaving the rest of the article alone. I have a question for RSchlafly though - while you state above that you are not "expressing an opinion about whether the Indian relocation was good", I took that to refer to the policy of relocation itself. Do you personally believe that the way the government handled the relocation, and the deaths of 4,000 that resulted directly from it, was somehow not immoral? I'd sincerely like to know. --[[User:DinsdaleP\|DinsdaleP]] 13:44, 7 December 2008 (EST)
		+
		+	::::: I don't know enough about the matter to cast a moral judgment. But I do know that most of the stuff I removed is just plain wrong. Eg, RJJensen keeps putting in statements about how Jackson "rejected the Supreme Court decision on the matter". There was no such decision.
		+	::::: RJJensen also inserted: ''Robert Remini, Jackson's most fervent defender, admits that the Trail of Tears had horrors that "beggar the imagination," noting the Indians were "American citizens who were denied their basic civil rights as well as their property because of the nation's perceived need and fear."'' I looked this up. Remini actually wrote that sentence about Japanese-Americans, not Indians. [[User:RSchlafly\|RSchlafly]] 14:19, 7 December 2008 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:44, December 7, 2008
Line 79:		Line 79:

	::: I am not erasing facts; just one-sided opinions. An opinion should not go in just because you label a historian as a conservative. The labels and opinions are unnecessary. Just stick to the facts. [[User:RSchlafly\|RSchlafly]] 13:16, 7 December 2008 (EST)		::: I am not erasing facts; just one-sided opinions. An opinion should not go in just because you label a historian as a conservative. The labels and opinions are unnecessary. Just stick to the facts. [[User:RSchlafly\|RSchlafly]] 13:16, 7 December 2008 (EST)
		+
		+	::::If this site stuck to only posting verifiable facts instead of opinion, then the [[Barack Obama]] article would be a fraction of its current length. I restored the reference to Burnett's account, and leaving the rest of the article alone. I have a question for RSchlafly though - while you state above that you are not "expressing an opinion about whether the Indian relocation was good", I took that to refer to the policy of relocation itself. Do you personally believe that the way the government handled the relocation, and the deaths of 4,000 that resulted directly from it, was somehow not immoral? I'd sincerely like to know. --[[User:DinsdaleP\|DinsdaleP]] 13:44, 7 December 2008 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:16, December 7, 2008
Line 77:		Line 77:
	I see that RJJensen has inserted some more one-sided comments. It does not help to explain the views of one political party, without also explaining the views of the majority party. It also has some allegations that are not supported by the references. I say that the comments should be removed. [[User:RSchlafly\|RSchlafly]] 22:34, 6 December 2008 (EST)		I see that RJJensen has inserted some more one-sided comments. It does not help to explain the views of one political party, without also explaining the views of the majority party. It also has some allegations that are not supported by the references. I say that the comments should be removed. [[User:RSchlafly\|RSchlafly]] 22:34, 6 December 2008 (EST)
	::I fear that RSchlafly has fallen into a liberal trap--by which he erases the facts regarding the conservatives and the evangelicals of the days --and erases the judgment of leading conservative historians of our time. That is bad policy indeed for a conservative encyclopedia. The article does explain Jackson's liberal position, but to erase the conservative position is astonishing. [[User:RJJensen\|RJJensen]] 06:13, 7 December 2008 (EST)		::I fear that RSchlafly has fallen into a liberal trap--by which he erases the facts regarding the conservatives and the evangelicals of the days --and erases the judgment of leading conservative historians of our time. That is bad policy indeed for a conservative encyclopedia. The article does explain Jackson's liberal position, but to erase the conservative position is astonishing. [[User:RJJensen\|RJJensen]] 06:13, 7 December 2008 (EST)
		+
		+	::: I am not erasing facts; just one-sided opinions. An opinion should not go in just because you label a historian as a conservative. The labels and opinions are unnecessary. Just stick to the facts. [[User:RSchlafly\|RSchlafly]] 13:16, 7 December 2008 (EST)

@@ Line 71: / Line 71: @@
 ::::::: I am not expressing an opinion about whether the Indian relocation was good or bad. It was hotly debated at the time, and both sides have some merit. It certainly was not genocide. Nobody intended to exterminate the Cherokees, as far as I know. I just want to state the facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:15, 6 December 2008 (EST)
 ==One-sided comments==
 I see that RJJensen has inserted some more one-sided comments. It does not help to explain the views of one political party, without also explaining the views of the majority party. It also has some allegations that are not supported by the references. I say that the comments should be removed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:34, 6 December 2008 (EST)
 ::I fear that RSchlafly has fallen into a liberal trap--by which he erases the facts regarding the conservatives and the evangelicals of the days --and erases the judgment of leading conservative historians of our time. That is bad policy indeed for a conservative encyclopedia. The article does explain Jackson's liberal position, but to erase the conservative position is astonishing. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 06:13, 7 December 2008 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:13, December 7, 2008
Line 74:		Line 74:
	==One-sided comments==		==One-sided comments==
	I see that RJJensen has inserted some more one-sided comments. It does not help to explain the views of one political party, without also explaining the views of the majority party. It also has some allegations that are not supported by the references. I say that the comments should be removed. [[User:RSchlafly\|RSchlafly]] 22:34, 6 December 2008 (EST)		I see that RJJensen has inserted some more one-sided comments. It does not help to explain the views of one political party, without also explaining the views of the majority party. It also has some allegations that are not supported by the references. I say that the comments should be removed. [[User:RSchlafly\|RSchlafly]] 22:34, 6 December 2008 (EST)
		+	::I fear that RSchlafly has fallen into a liberal trap--by which he erases the facts regarding the conservatives and the evangelicals of the days --and erases the judgment of leading conservative historians of our time. That is bad policy indeed for a conservative encyclopedia. The article does explain Jackson's liberal position, but to erase the conservative position is astonishing. [[User:RJJensen\|RJJensen]] 06:13, 7 December 2008 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:34, December 7, 2008
Line 71:		Line 71:

	::::::: I am not expressing an opinion about whether the Indian relocation was good or bad. It was hotly debated at the time, and both sides have some merit. It certainly was not genocide. Nobody intended to exterminate the Cherokees, as far as I know. I just want to state the facts. [[User:RSchlafly\|RSchlafly]] 22:15, 6 December 2008 (EST)		::::::: I am not expressing an opinion about whether the Indian relocation was good or bad. It was hotly debated at the time, and both sides have some merit. It certainly was not genocide. Nobody intended to exterminate the Cherokees, as far as I know. I just want to state the facts. [[User:RSchlafly\|RSchlafly]] 22:15, 6 December 2008 (EST)
		+
		+	==One-sided comments==
		+	I see that RJJensen has inserted some more one-sided comments. It does not help to explain the views of one political party, without also explaining the views of the majority party. It also has some allegations that are not supported by the references. I say that the comments should be removed. [[User:RSchlafly\|RSchlafly]] 22:34, 6 December 2008 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:15, December 7, 2008
Line 69:		Line 69:

	::::::RSchlafly, you haven't answered my question. If the article wasn't balanced, and there's available evidence to believe that this was somehow not genocide, or ethnic cleansing, or just an low point in our nation's history we need to learn from and never allow again, where's your content to support it? If you're not willing to offer any, and just want to sanitize Burnett's account by removing it, then you're doing this project a disservice. --[[User:DinsdaleP\|DinsdaleP]] 19:44, 6 December 2008 (EST)		::::::RSchlafly, you haven't answered my question. If the article wasn't balanced, and there's available evidence to believe that this was somehow not genocide, or ethnic cleansing, or just an low point in our nation's history we need to learn from and never allow again, where's your content to support it? If you're not willing to offer any, and just want to sanitize Burnett's account by removing it, then you're doing this project a disservice. --[[User:DinsdaleP\|DinsdaleP]] 19:44, 6 December 2008 (EST)
		+
		+	::::::: I am not expressing an opinion about whether the Indian relocation was good or bad. It was hotly debated at the time, and both sides have some merit. It certainly was not genocide. Nobody intended to exterminate the Cherokees, as far as I know. I just want to state the facts. [[User:RSchlafly\|RSchlafly]] 22:15, 6 December 2008 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:44, December 7, 2008
Line 67:		Line 67:
	:::: I just state the facts. The reader for his own opinions. [[User:RSchlafly\|RSchlafly]] 18:58, 6 December 2008 (EST)		:::: I just state the facts. The reader for his own opinions. [[User:RSchlafly\|RSchlafly]] 18:58, 6 December 2008 (EST)
	:::::the question is whether genocide is a fact or not. [[User:RJJensen\|RJJensen]] 19:35, 6 December 2008 (EST)		:::::the question is whether genocide is a fact or not. [[User:RJJensen\|RJJensen]] 19:35, 6 December 2008 (EST)
		+
		+	::::::RSchlafly, you haven't answered my question. If the article wasn't balanced, and there's available evidence to believe that this was somehow not genocide, or ethnic cleansing, or just an low point in our nation's history we need to learn from and never allow again, where's your content to support it? If you're not willing to offer any, and just want to sanitize Burnett's account by removing it, then you're doing this project a disservice. --[[User:DinsdaleP\|DinsdaleP]] 19:44, 6 December 2008 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:35, December 7, 2008
Line 66:		Line 66:

	:::: I just state the facts. The reader for his own opinions. [[User:RSchlafly\|RSchlafly]] 18:58, 6 December 2008 (EST)		:::: I just state the facts. The reader for his own opinions. [[User:RSchlafly\|RSchlafly]] 18:58, 6 December 2008 (EST)
		+	:::::the question is whether genocide is a fact or not. [[User:RJJensen\|RJJensen]] 19:35, 6 December 2008 (EST)